Is Routine Contrast Swallow after Ivor-Lewis Oesophagectomy Required or Justified?

Abstract Background Traditionally many Upper-GI cancer tertiary centres have carried out contrast swallow fluoroscopic studies as a routine after Ivor-Lewis “Two-Stage” Oesophagectomy. However, more recently studies have demonstrated the limited value of this test as a routine screening study. The primary outcome of our study was to assess the sensitivity of routine contrast swallow in identifying anastomotic leak post oesophagectomy and identify how the study changed management of these patients. Methods This was a single-centre retrospective study involving 2-observer data collection. Data was collected and analysed from clinical notes for all patients who underwent an Ivor-Lewis oesophagectomy for cancer between January 2011 to December 2020. Results A total of 220 patients were identified. Protocol at the centre was to obtain a routine contrast swallow in the Fluoroscopy department on the fifth post-operative day– which occurred in 211 patients (96%). A total of 19 (8.64%) patients were diagnosed with an anastomotic leak (clinically and/or radiologically), with contrast swallow imaging and/or computed tomography (CT). There was no correlation between incidence of leak and T stage (p = 0.38) and N staging (p = 0.22). Only 3 of 19 anastomotic leaks were positively identified on contrast swallow study. All patients with anastomotic leak identified by contrast swallow study were asymptomatic i.e. “subclinical”. 2 patients were managed conservatively; one underwent endoscopic stent insertion. CT scan with oral contrast was the mode of diagnosis for 16 anastomotic leaks; where 10 patients underwent a CT scan following a normal contrast swallow study due to suspicious symptoms and 6 patients underwent expedited CT scans prior to Day-5 contrast swallow study due to presence of symptoms and limitation of fluoroscopy resources. The sensitivity of the Day-5 contrast swallow study was calculated to be 15.8% (CI 3.4, 39.6) with a specificity of 98.0% (CI 95.0, 99.5). Conclusions Our data reflects that routine contrast swallow study on Day-5 post Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy has a poor sensitivity in detecting anastomotic leak and may be falsely reassuring. The vast majority of patients had no change in management as a result of contrast swallow. This adds to the growing body of evidence limiting the role of contrast swallow in this situation. We recommend that clinical judgement and use of CT and endoscopy be the surgeon’s prime tools in the diagnosis of anastomotic leak post oesophagectomy.